TDF Stage 17 *spoiler*
Comments
-
mari blanc wrote:At the margins of the Wiggins/Froome/Sky issues, did anyone notice the moment when Kloden punctured yesterday? Zubeldia, his team's best-placed rider, had lost contact with the Wiggins group, and happened to be cycling past as Kloden got his bike fixed, looking over at his team "mate". Kloden escaped as fast as he could back up the road, without having acknowledged him in any way, not even making eye contact. Someone mentioned that Zubeldia ghosts his way into the tdf top tens. So he really is an invisible man!
The commentators tried to pass it off as Klodi helping out with the team competition line , me i think he just didnt give a f*ck.Gasping - but somehow still alive !0 -
On the interview for ITV4 last night he said that as soon as he hit the front he had a realization that he had basically just won the tour (Nibs had gone) and his head completely fell apart - everything about maintaining performance went out of the window.Dave_1 wrote:why did Wiggins take the front for a lengthy spell on the final climb was what I was wondering ? Had he sat behind Froome he could have hung for a mile more and saved himself from that humbling Froome gave him + with hand gestures. I wonder if Froome had been given his freedom on the two hilly stages he clearly would have dropped wiggins, but what would the time gap be? I guess Froome would have a minute of a lead right now. Brad has to do Froome in the TT..60 seconds + of a win for me to feel ok with what Sky have done as strategy
Can hardly blame him for that.You only need two tools: WD40 and Duck Tape.
If it doesn't move and should, use the WD40.
If it shouldn't move and does, use the tape.0 -
The NOS version of Ned van der Boulting gave Froome a proper grilling last night about this Tour and the Vuelta last year. Froome did pretty well holding off the questions and saying that Bradley had strong legs for both Tours. If he was bullsh1tting then a fantastic career as Tony Blair Mk 2 awaits him after cycling! Part of me suspects that Froome is very good at hiding when he feels under pressure...
I could nt follow the Dutch enough to be sure but the studio pundits were pretty anti-Wiggo tho, epsecially the token hot girl who was going on about this being bad for Sky and Bad for cycling! The Sporza people seems a bit more balanced...
(Sorry, our internet is down and the phone did that weird IP blocked thing again!)We're in danger of confusing passion with incompetence
- @ddraver0 -
ddraver wrote:The NOS version of Ned van der Boulting gave Froome a proper grilling last night about this Tour and the Vuelta last year. Froome did pretty well holding off the questions and saying that Bradley had strong legs for both Tours. If he was bullsh1tting then a fantastic career as Tony Blair Mk 2 awaits him after cycling! Part of me suspects that Froome is very good at hiding when he feels under pressure...
I could nt follow the Dutch enough to be sure but the studio pundits were pretty anti-Wiggo tho, epsecially the token hot girl who was going on about this being bad for Sky and Bad for cycling! The Sporza people seems a bit more balanced...
I'm always a night behind the avondettape but by and large, NOS are a lot less interested in the racing than Sporza.
Sporza are what you'd consider real, pure, sports fans. They can appreciate all sides of winning - and are always impressed when someone wins.
NOS are a bit more like us/me. They're more fickle and more interested in whether they're entertained, and they get all excessively romantic about it all. Mainly Smeets to blame for the latter. They spend a lot of time eulogising about the past as much as they do talking about today's race.0 -
nweststeyn wrote:we really are all a bunch of miserable gits aren't we...
If there is anything to learn from this it seems to be that most of us wish that there was no such thing as le Tour or any cycle sport whatsoever, because its never good enough.
Every single thread about this tour could be summed up by this one comment!
Nweststeyn, you win the Internet!0 -
Dave_1 wrote:why did Wiggins take the front for a lengthy spell on the final climb was what I was wondering ? Had he sat behind Froome he could have hung for a mile more and saved himself from that humbling Froome gave him + with hand gestures. I wonder if Froome had been given his freedom on the two hilly stages he clearly would have dropped wiggins, but what would the time gap be? I guess Froome would have a minute of a lead right now. Brad has to do Froome in the TT..60 seconds + of a win for me to feel ok with what Sky have done as strategy
To have a minute's lead over Wiggins, he would have had to take over three minutes out of him on those two mountain finishes. Are you seriously suggesting he could have done that?
On the first one he was clinging on to the back of the group looking spent while Wiggins drove the chase back to Nibali. When they made the junction he suddenly attacked and opened up a gap (then presumably got a shout in his ear saying "what the f4ck are you doing?" so he eased off). If he had kept going we don't know what would have happened. It's possible he would have stayed clear and maybe taken a minute out of Wiggins. It's also possible that Wiggins would have dieseled his way back up to him in the same manner that he has brought back every other attack that anyone has launched. Nobody has taken any time out of Wiggins in the mountains, apart from Froome by about 4 seconds.
On the second occasion Wiggins lost his focus right at the end when he realised he had effectively won the Tour. Instead of measuring his effort he went to the front and overdid it. They dropped everyone else and Froome was definintely able to go further. He could have put 30 seconds into Wiggins and caught Valverde for the stage, I would guess, but certainly not more than that as there was so little distance left to cover. Obvioulsy if Wiggins had not been in the position of having effectively won the Tour (i.e. if he had been level with or behind Froome) he wouldn't have lost his focus and things would have played out differently .
I can't see any evidence that Froome could have opened up such a lead. I think he could be sitting closer to Wiggins today: maybe a minute behind instead of two. But Wiggins would still be in yellow and would still gain time on him in the final TT. The real question is not what would have happened if Froome had gone on alone, it's what would have happened if Froome hadn't lost a minute and a half due to a puncture in the first week.0 -
Rick Chasey wrote:ddraver wrote:The NOS version of Ned van der Boulting gave Froome a proper grilling last night about this Tour and the Vuelta last year. Froome did pretty well holding off the questions and saying that Bradley had strong legs for both Tours. If he was bullsh1tting then a fantastic career as Tony Blair Mk 2 awaits him after cycling! Part of me suspects that Froome is very good at hiding when he feels under pressure...
I could nt follow the Dutch enough to be sure but the studio pundits were pretty anti-Wiggo tho, epsecially the token hot girl who was going on about this being bad for Sky and Bad for cycling! The Sporza people seems a bit more balanced...
I'm always a night behind the avondettape but by and large, NOS are a lot less interested in the racing than Sporza.
Sporza are what you'd consider real, pure, sports fans. They can appreciate all sides of winning - and are always impressed when someone wins.
NOS are a bit more like us/me. They're more fickle and more interested in whether they're entertained, and they get all excessively romantic about it all. Mainly Smeets to blame for the latter. They spend a lot of time eulogising about the past as much as they do talking about today's race.
Hmm, had a few emails from dutch-land this morning with the same anti-wiggo sentiment - avondetappe die-hards. I'm surprised to be honest. I would have thought them wishing Rabo would take more of a sky approach: northern european efficiency, "cycle by numbers (c)(r)". { sorry, Rick, that's probably not how you would like to see dutch cycling }
Anyway, who was the "hot girl"?0 -
Will find out tonight when I watch it
.
Like I said, NOS and Smeets do a lot of romanticising, and I think the Wiggins 'interesting' personality that the Brit journos love, including his unusual press conference style doesn't translate that well.0 -
Rick Chasey wrote:Will find out tonight when I watch it.
Like I said, NOS and Smeets do a lot of romanticising, and I think the Wiggins 'interesting' personality that the Brit journos love, including his unusual press conference style doesn't translate that well.
Very interesting and all that, but who is the hot girl?"I have a lovely photo of a Camargue horse but will not post it now" (Frenchfighter - July 2013)0 -
-
frenchfighter wrote:Jonathan Vaughters @Vaughters
prevent Froome/Wiggo drama in the future?Establish equitable budget limits and active transfer market. Avoids talent"hoarding"by rich teams
Was Froome spotted as a talent by anyone else other than Sky? I know his salary is large now cos of Vuelta but his first contract wasn't.
Either: he's not a talent, he doped ergo above fails.
He was a talent that sky spotted and nurtured, legitimately, and no one else saw his potential. So budget limits fails, unless you think it's legitimate to reward teams development of talent by making them have to give them up.
Apparently his illness is now under control....since having been at sky. Coincidence, or sky's professionalism? If the latter, once again they'd lose out if salary limits meant they couldn't keep him...0 -
PBo wrote:frenchfighter wrote:Jonathan Vaughters @Vaughters
prevent Froome/Wiggo drama in the future?Establish equitable budget limits and active transfer market. Avoids talent"hoarding"by rich teams
Was Froome spotted as a talent by anyone else other than Sky? I know his salary is large now cos of Vuelta but his first contract wasn't.
Either: he's not a talent, he doped ergo above fails.
He was a talent that sky spotted and nurtured, legitimately, and no one else saw his potential. So budget limits fails, unless you think it's legitimate to reward teams development of talent by making them have to give them up.
Apparently his illness is now under control....since having been at sky. Coincidence, or sky's professionalism? If the latter, once again they'd lose out if salary limits meant they couldn't keep him...
Think Vaughters said he tried to sign Froome after the Vuelta but was financially outgunned by sky.0 -
It's all very well saying that Froome looked stronger a couple of times and could have attacked if he hadn't had team duties, but it's impossible to know whether he could have made it stick. How many times did Nibali attack and gap both Froome and Wiggins? More than the couple of times that some people have turned into a scandal of epic proportions in Froome's case.
But how much time did Nibali gain from all those attacks? Er, none. None at all. Not a sausage. Froome and Wiggins just pulled him back bit by bit, and ended up looking stronger and even dropping him. It's possible that Froome would have been able to ride merrily off into the distance if he'd actually attacked, but it's also possible that Wiggins would have kept tapping out the same tempo and reeled him back in. We don't know.
It would have been great to see the two of them actually battling each other (to be honest, it would have been good to see any sort of a battle at all), but it's a huge leap to say that Froome would have won, and Sky would have had to be completely mad to allow it given their position.
But I'll be interested to see how Froome does as team leader.N00b commuter with delusions of competence
FCN 11 - If you scalp me, do I not bleed?0 -
Yes, I think he tweeted about it a week or so ago, saying that if he wanted to be team leader he could have come to Garmin, but he chose Sky's money and super domestique role. I'd be surprised if Garmin was the only team interested, but Vaughters' interest is a curious sidenote to the suspicions over Froome's performance.Rick Chasey wrote:PBo wrote:frenchfighter wrote:Jonathan Vaughters @Vaughters
prevent Froome/Wiggo drama in the future?Establish equitable budget limits and active transfer market. Avoids talent"hoarding"by rich teams
Was Froome spotted as a talent by anyone else other than Sky? I know his salary is large now cos of Vuelta but his first contract wasn't.
Either: he's not a talent, he doped ergo above fails.
He was a talent that sky spotted and nurtured, legitimately, and no one else saw his potential. So budget limits fails, unless you think it's legitimate to reward teams development of talent by making them have to give them up.
Apparently his illness is now under control....since having been at sky. Coincidence, or sky's professionalism? If the latter, once again they'd lose out if salary limits meant they couldn't keep him...
Think Vaughters said he tried to sign Froome after the Vuelta but was financially outgunned by sky.N00b commuter with delusions of competence
FCN 11 - If you scalp me, do I not bleed?0 -
Rick Chasey wrote:PBo wrote:frenchfighter wrote:Jonathan Vaughters @Vaughters
prevent Froome/Wiggo drama in the future?Establish equitable budget limits and active transfer market. Avoids talent"hoarding"by rich teams
Was Froome spotted as a talent by anyone else other than Sky? I know his salary is large now cos of Vuelta but his first contract wasn't.
Either: he's not a talent, he doped ergo above fails.
He was a talent that sky spotted and nurtured, legitimately, and no one else saw his potential. So budget limits fails, unless you think it's legitimate to reward teams development of talent by making them have to give them up.
Apparently his illness is now under control....since having been at sky. Coincidence, or sky's professionalism? If the latter, once again they'd lose out if salary limits meant they couldn't keep him...
Think Vaughters said he tried to sign Froome after the Vuelta but was financially outgunned by sky.
Yeah, apparently, he tried to sign him at the beginning before he started doing really well.Contador is the Greatest0 -
gattocattivo wrote:Dave_1 wrote:why did Wiggins take the front for a lengthy spell on the final climb was what I was wondering ? Had he sat behind Froome he could have hung for a mile more and saved himself from that humbling Froome gave him + with hand gestures. I wonder if Froome had been given his freedom on the two hilly stages he clearly would have dropped wiggins, but what would the time gap be? I guess Froome would have a minute of a lead right now. Brad has to do Froome in the TT..60 seconds + of a win for me to feel ok with what Sky have done as strategy
To have a minute's lead over Wiggins, he would have had to take over three minutes out of him on those two mountain finishes. Are you seriously suggesting he could have done that?
On the first one he was clinging on to the back of the group looking spent while Wiggins drove the chase back to Nibali. When they made the junction he suddenly attacked and opened up a gap (then presumably got a shout in his ear saying "what the f4ck are you doing?" so he eased off). If he had kept going we don't know what would have happened. It's possible he would have stayed clear and maybe taken a minute out of Wiggins. It's also possible that Wiggins would have dieseled his way back up to him in the same manner that he has brought back every other attack that anyone has launched. Nobody has taken any time out of Wiggins in the mountains, apart from Froome by about 4 seconds.
On the second occasion Wiggins lost his focus right at the end when he realised he had effectively won the Tour. Instead of measuring his effort he went to the front and overdid it. They dropped everyone else and Froome was definintely able to go further. He could have put 30 seconds into Wiggins and caught Valverde for the stage, I would guess, but certainly not more than that as there was so little distance left to cover. Obvioulsy if Wiggins had not been in the position of having effectively won the Tour (i.e. if he had been level with or behind Froome) he wouldn't have lost his focus and things would have played out differently .
I can't see any evidence that Froome could have opened up such a lead. I think he could be sitting closer to Wiggins today: maybe a minute behind instead of two. But Wiggins would still be in yellow and would still gain time on him in the final TT. The real question is not what would have happened if Froome had gone on alone, it's what would have happened if Froome hadn't lost a minute and a half due to a puncture in the first week.0 -
Spiny_Norman wrote:but Vaughters' interest is a curious sidenote to the suspicions over Froome's performance.
Yeah this occurred to me esp given how clean they say they are.
I am still majorly not understanding how a mediocre at best rider, with a low grade palmares, goes to a GT Podium placer in such a short period of time.Contador is the Greatest0 -
Rick Chasey wrote:PBo wrote:frenchfighter wrote:Jonathan Vaughters @Vaughters
prevent Froome/Wiggo drama in the future?Establish equitable budget limits and active transfer market. Avoids talent"hoarding"by rich teams
Was Froome spotted as a talent by anyone else other than Sky? I know his salary is large now cos of Vuelta but his first contract wasn't.
Either: he's not a talent, he doped ergo above fails.
He was a talent that sky spotted and nurtured, legitimately, and no one else saw his potential. So budget limits fails, unless you think it's legitimate to reward teams development of talent by making them have to give them up.
Apparently his illness is now under control....since having been at sky. Coincidence, or sky's professionalism? If the latter, once again they'd lose out if salary limits meant they couldn't keep him...
Think Vaughters said he tried to sign Froome after the Vuelta but was financially outgunned by sky.
As much as I like Vaughters and can see his frustration I don't think that controlling salaries and budgets is the way to go. If they introduce more rules then people will just think up clever ways to get around them. This would just make the murky would of pro cycling even more murky.
Team Sky want to attract the best riders to their team but lets say they are only allowed to pay a maximum of £1 million per year to any particular rider whereas the best riders at the moment are earning £2 million per year. Team Sky can sign Mark Cavendish and pay him £1 million per year through the pro cycling team, but then pay him an extra £1 million directly from Sky to be the fact of Sky Sports or whatever. Cavendish gets the salary he wants, Sky get the success and exposure they want and Vaughters still can't afford to sign him."I have a lovely photo of a Camargue horse but will not post it now" (Frenchfighter - July 2013)0 -
gattocattivo wrote:Dave_1 wrote:why did Wiggins take the front for a lengthy spell on the final climb was what I was wondering ? Had he sat behind Froome he could have hung for a mile more and saved himself from that humbling Froome gave him + with hand gestures. I wonder if Froome had been given his freedom on the two hilly stages he clearly would have dropped wiggins, but what would the time gap be? I guess Froome would have a minute of a lead right now. Brad has to do Froome in the TT..60 seconds + of a win for me to feel ok with what Sky have done as strategy
To have a minute's lead over Wiggins, he would have had to take over three minutes out of him on those two mountain finishes. Are you seriously suggesting he could have done that?
On the first one he was clinging on to the back of the group looking spent while Wiggins drove the chase back to Nibali. When they made the junction he suddenly attacked and opened up a gap (then presumably got a shout in his ear saying "what the f4ck are you doing?" so he eased off). If he had kept going we don't know what would have happened. It's possible he would have stayed clear and maybe taken a minute out of Wiggins. It's also possible that Wiggins would have dieseled his way back up to him in the same manner that he has brought back every other attack that anyone has launched. Nobody has taken any time out of Wiggins in the mountains, apart from Froome by about 4 seconds.
On the second occasion Wiggins lost his focus right at the end when he realised he had effectively won the Tour. Instead of measuring his effort he went to the front and overdid it. They dropped everyone else and Froome was definintely able to go further. He could have put 30 seconds into Wiggins and caught Valverde for the stage, I would guess, but certainly not more than that as there was so little distance left to cover. Obvioulsy if Wiggins had not been in the position of having effectively won the Tour (i.e. if he had been level with or behind Froome) he wouldn't have lost his focus and things would have played out differently .
I can't see any evidence that Froome could have opened up such a lead. I think he could be sitting closer to Wiggins today: maybe a minute behind instead of two. But Wiggins would still be in yellow and would still gain time on him in the final TT. The real question is not what would have happened if Froome had gone on alone, it's what would have happened if Froome hadn't lost a minute and a half due to a puncture in the first week.
good points you make but I think Froome has a hell of a kick in those last few miles to the summits. I do think Froome could have had 1 minute 45 to 2 minutes off Wiggins from two summits. He would be in the lead by half a minute today and Wiggo would have taken yellow off him in the TT tomorrow. For me, if Brad takes over 30 seconds off Froome tomorrow then we have seen the correct winner of the TDF. It is not Brad's fault Froome lost time in week 1. A decent margin of victory tomorrow over Froome is important for Bradley as it defeats the argument that if Froome had been given the freedom on the two summit finishes Froome would have won the TDF. Brad can vindicate sky management's strategy tomorrow. And of course he will win the TDF but how it is remembered is very important too0 -
There are riders in other teams being paid a lot more than the Sky guys. So it is not ALL about money - might have been for Froome though.You only need two tools: WD40 and Duck Tape.
If it doesn't move and should, use the WD40.
If it shouldn't move and does, use the tape.0 -
Wiggins has 2:05 on Froome, even if your wild assumption about timing was correct how would that give Froome a 30 second lead? If he took 1:45 Wiggins would lead by 20 seconds, and if Froome took 2 minutes Wiggins would lead by 5 seconds As for the argument that Froome could have won if he'd been given his chance, that's very speculative, and I still maintain outside of a couple of hundred cycling forum posters no one else knows, cares or will remember. Ask 30 random people what 'Chaingate' is to test that one.Dave_1 wrote:good points you make but I think Froome has a hell of a kick in those last few miles to the summits. I do think Froome could have had 1 minute 45 to 2 minutes off Wiggins from two summits. He would be in the lead by half a minute today and Wiggo would have taken yellow off him in the TT tomorrow. For me, if Brad takes over 30 seconds off Froome tomorrow then we have seen the correct winner of the TDF. It is not Brad's fault Froome lost time in week 1. A decent margin of victory tomorrow over Froome is important for Bradley as it defeats the argument that if Froome had been given the freedom on the two summit finishes Froome would have won the TDF. Brad can vindicate sky management's strategy tomorrow. And of course he will win the TDF but how it is remembered is very important too0 -
dougzz wrote:
Wiggins has 2:05 on Froome, even if your wild assumption about timing was correct how would that give Froome a 30 second lead? If he took 1:45 Wiggins would lead by 20 seconds, and if Froome took 2 minutes Wiggins would lead by 5 seconds As for the argument that Froome could have won if he'd been given his chance, that's very speculative, and I still maintain outside of a couple of hundred cycling forum posters no one else knows, cares or will remember. Ask 30 random people what 'Chaingate' is to test that one.Dave_1 wrote:good points you make but I think Froome has a hell of a kick in those last few miles to the summits. I do think Froome could have had 1 minute 45 to 2 minutes off Wiggins from two summits. He would be in the lead by half a minute today and Wiggo would have taken yellow off him in the TT tomorrow. For me, if Brad takes over 30 seconds off Froome tomorrow then we have seen the correct winner of the TDF. It is not Brad's fault Froome lost time in week 1. A decent margin of victory tomorrow over Froome is important for Bradley as it defeats the argument that if Froome had been given the freedom on the two summit finishes Froome would have won the TDF. Brad can vindicate sky management's strategy tomorrow. And of course he will win the TDF but how it is remembered is very important too
ok, IMO Sky stopped Froome from gaining about 2 minutes of time. So, yes, you're correct..it would be very close today if you agree with my analysis of what a rapid climber takes out of a rider who has cracked 2 miles from the end. Wiggins must beat Froome tomorrow to silence Froome's followers.0 -
Seems some of the Belgians on TV are of the opinion Froome was borderline humiliating Wiggins yesterday.0
-
Rick Chasey wrote:Seems some of the Belgians on TV are of the opinion Froome was borderline humiliating Wiggins yesterday.
Yep. I reckoned if he said "come on boy, good boy, you can do it" that would've crossed the lineFckin' Quintana … that creep can roll, man.0 -
Let me just state that I am selling Froome and buying Wiggins both as a rider and a character.Contador is the Greatest0 -
Wiggins has let Froome rest on a number of occasions - which is fine and a good tactic by Sky - Froome has been working bloody hard! Had there been a need we could perhaps have seen Wiggins drop Froome on those occasions.Dave_1 wrote:ok, IMO Sky stopped Froome from gaining about 2 minutes of time.
We'll never know though, so meh.
The only time they have actually raced each other is in the TT and Wiggins is better by a good margin. Saturday's TT result will be down to what Wiggins decides to do rather than Froome's performance.You only need two tools: WD40 and Duck Tape.
If it doesn't move and should, use the WD40.
If it shouldn't move and does, use the tape.0 -
Wiggins will hardly be able to sleep with all this humiliation heaped on him. But you know what, he'll have yellow pyjamasiainf72 wrote:Rick Chasey wrote:Seems some of the Belgians on TV are of the opinion Froome was borderline humiliating Wiggins yesterday.
Yep. I reckoned if he said "come on boy, good boy, you can do it" that would've crossed the line 0 -
dougzz wrote:
Wiggins will hardly be able to sleep with all this humiliation heaped on him. But you know what, he'll have yellow pyjamasiainf72 wrote:Rick Chasey wrote:Seems some of the Belgians on TV are of the opinion Froome was borderline humiliating Wiggins yesterday.
Yep. I reckoned if he said "come on boy, good boy, you can do it" that would've crossed the line
I want him to dye his sideburns yellow for Sunday!0
(sorry Dennis!) 
